Granny rules Dk

Body blow for butter-loving Danes as fat tax kicks in

Not content with banning Marmite, because it contains, according to them, unnatural additives, they are now taxing Butter, cheeses etc because they contain natural additives.

I confidentially expect them to ban chairs soon because walking is more healthy than sitting.

Having a Danish wife myself, I have to be careful about what I write so you are getting a somewhat edited version of this OP, but suffice it to say that what Denmark does today, other countries will do tomorrow, or at least those that are governed by fastidious, mealy-mouthed kill-joys.

Oh - I should add hypocritical unless Denmark decides to ban the exporting of Danish Butter and Bacon. Are they trying to kill us?

Originally posted by string:

I confidentially expect them to ban chairs soon because walking is more healthy than sitting.

Not chairs but chair legs.

Additionally, I haven't trusted a Dane since Hamlet's responsibility for the death of fair Ophelia.

Please don't mention this to your wife.

They're just using fat people as an excuse for more taxes. Like most things

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Additionally, I haven't trusted a Dane since Hamlet's responsibility for the death of fair Ophelia.

Dear Ophelia, I love you dear,

I’m sorry that I haven’t been here.

Dear Ophelia, you know I’m hurt,

It’s been two months since he was laid in the dirt.


Dear OPHLIA I’M Sorry that I lied,

I really do mean to make you my bride

When I get through this all, I’ll treat you well,

I’m sorry I’m making your life a hell.


Dear Ophelia, your father thinks I’m mad,

If the truth be known, I’m think he’d not be glad,

If my dear Ophelia – we were to wed,

And I took you to our wedding bed.



Dear Ophelia, I know that he is dead,

But what he told me last night lays on me like lead

In orchard he lay sleeping, that’s why he didn’t hear

His brother crept up, and Poured poison in his ear

Sorry, I get emotional too about that issue.

'Twas ever a hate crime, 'tweren't?

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

They're just using fat people as an excuse for more taxes. Like most things

Too true. We'll follow suit here in the UK soon enough and it really boils my piss. It's yet another example of the short-sighted taxation policy endemic in Western economies.

There's been talk over here recently of burdening the fast food companies like McDonalds and Burger King with extra taxes and restraints on trade.
e.g. From
'Fat tax' to hit McDonald's in Essex
"Waltham Forest council, in east London, last year said it intended to ban new takeaways opening within 400 meters of shcools [sic], youth centres and parks. Knowsley council, Liverpool, has also asked planning officers to consider restricting fast food outlets."
"An Essex council is considering levying a "fat tax" of £1,000 on fast food outlets that want to open up in its area, which would hit everyone from McDonald's to a small fish and chip shop."

Have these people not noticed that we're in the grips of an employment crisis, and that these companies are some of most prolific employers of youth in our country? The last thing I'd want to do is make it more difficult to conduct trade, especially a trade that is clearly so successful.

We're in a consumer economy, already struggling to consume because of a lack of money, and now they want to stop us from buying stuff too. None of them appear to understand that this is totally detrimental to our way of life. I'm not being sarcastic when I say that we should consider the knock-on effects, such as a probable impact on our exercise economy. We spend loads on products and services to aid people in the pursuit of healthier bodies, and encouraging them to eat to excess keeps that cycle going. This in turn will knock on to the likes Les Mills whose public performance license arrangement keeps musical artists well paid. When you consider that our quality of life as a nation is governed by the success of our economy, and our quality of life as an individual is down to our ability to function within that economy, obesity is not a glimmer of a problem compared to unemployment.

I'm not some anti-tax nut btw. I like taxes because I like public services but the capitalist model depends on the easy flow of capital. The way I see it, the more we stick taxes on individual products and services, the harder it is to do trade, and we all suffer as a result.

It's like the cigarette taxes. The money collected is meant to go to public education and smoking prevent, of course it just goes into the general fund.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Additionally, I haven't trusted a Dane since Hamlet's responsibility for the death of fair Ophelia.

I couldn't have put it better!
Dear Ophelia, I love you dear,

I’m sorry that I haven’t been here.

Dear Ophelia, you know I’m hurt,

It’s been two months since he was laid in the dirt.


Dear OPHLIA I’M Sorry that I lied,

I really do mean to make you my bride

When I get through this all, I’ll treat you well,

I’m sorry I’m making your life a hell.


Dear Ophelia, your father thinks I’m mad,

If the truth be known, I’m think he’d not be glad,

If my dear Ophelia – we were to wed,

And I took you to our wedding bed.



Dear Ophelia, I know that he is dead,

But what he told me last night lays on me like lead

In orchard he lay sleeping, that’s why he didn’t hear

His brother crept up, and Poured poison in his ear

Sorry, I get emotional too about that issue.

speaking of a fat tax

I wonder why they don't put a tax on those transfats that can be found in margarine.

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

speaking of a fat tax

Eh, a couple of years ago they had this... BK(?) ad that was all "eat like a man!" They tried to imply that to be a true man you should eat this enormous fatty… thing.

I remember being at Walmart and this obese couple exited the car park in the handicapped spot. They had to be 300 pounds each and were carrying Whataburger meals which are approach 2000 calories per meal. The obvious question becomes, did you every think Whataburger is part of the reason you're "handicapped" in the first place. Other than obesity, they had no other evident physical handicaps.

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

speaking of a fat tax

I dunno. I think the doubling will happen sooner than that.

The same stuff effects schools too WastedCharlie. What I find amusing is that they introduce healthy food at the dinner school and what do you see if near shops? Squads heading for the chip shop or the baker for hot sausage rolls or pies, etc. I did the same when at school. I know one school where an ice cream van sat round the corner from the main gate and did well at dinner time. What are we going to do next - have a food police? I do appreciate that GB, the USA and no doubt other countries have an obese problems that weigh heavily on health sources, etc. but it is like King Canute standing on the beach. However I also understand thateither Finland or Sweden I think it is has done better in the children food at schools than most.

Now the thought of a warm sausage roll wrapped up in the flaky pastry is making me hungry.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

but it is like King Canute standing on the beach.

In the US, it's gradually becoming an economic problem. We refuse to have a real national health care system, but the taxpayers wind up shelling billions for the care of people with self-inflicted diseases any (the US spending more public money per person for healthcare than countries do have an NHS ) You can't raise taxes on the millionaires under the delusion that those people are creating all the non-existent jobs, so the money for those people's medical bills will need to come from somewhere. Actually, now that one thinks about it, a fat tax does sense on this side of the pond at least.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Squads heading for the chip shop or the baker for hot sausage rolls or pies, etc.

Well certainly. However, an issue that increasingly coming to light is that the choices offered in the school cafeterias here are nothing approaching healthy.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

but the taxpayers wind up shelling billions for the care of people with self-inflicted diseases

Why do I get the feeling you're not talking about AIDS, and would be offended if anyone else mentioned it? Please reconsider your preference for government-funded health care: What the government funds, it must perforce control…

Oops! I just read a little further… It seems you're quite comfortable with outrageous government intervention in the lives of individual citizens! (Of course, not yours…) However, you may actually believe that there are no individuals, hence no citizens; only priveledged groups and persecutors. (Legitimate priveledge accrues only from previous persecution; and similarities –of skin color, religion, ethnic or national origin– redound upon all.)
Is that any way to view society?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

the taxpayers wind up shelling billions for the care of people with self-inflicted diseases

And that is one of the failures of communism and socialism: they take it as granted that you are a posession of the state. If I want to inflict myself, I have that right. My life and my body belong to me, they do not belong to the state. If people object to paying for my health care, then don't make them pay for it. I am going to eat triple-creme cheese, smoke tobacco, drink lots of alcohol, climb cliffs and mountains, and do all sorts of other fun things that might endanger me. Taxing me for that = punishing me for that. Punishing me for what I enjoy is evil. Seriously. Evil.

To help someone and then force them to avoid doing what led to them needing help is false charity. Charity is good. Charity does not coerce. Coercing people to avoid harming themselves is not charity. It is false.

We call that a "sin tax" over here. Sin taxes are bad.

And what is the result of this sort of thing? Tax me for doing something I enjoy? It makes me hate the state. It is counterproductive. It is evil, and it is also stupid.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Now the thought of a warm sausage roll wrapped up in the flaky pastry is making me hungry.

Bought the fixings for that yesterday...will prepare for evening meal today.

Originally posted by aefields:

And what is the result of this sort of thing? Tax me for doing something I enjoy? It makes me hate the state. It is counterproductive.

Without the tax, however, you're making me pay for your bad habits. OK, so the make it so the state doesn't reimburse the hospitals for the care, therefore "socialism" is eliminated. Now the hospital sends out a huge bill that they'll never get paid for and has to eat cost of your care, therefore they're forced to jack up the prices on people that can pay. Now my insurance just went up because of you.Seriously evil, as you say. I don't see anyway around people that do make good choices for their lifestyle and diet having to pay for those that don't, except taxing McDonald's, Burger King, etc and putting the money into a (hopefully) growing trust fund. "Sin taxes" are not socialism, but simple economics. Healthcare is large item on the Federal budget and a lot of it preventable .

Funny how conservatives are all against entitlements and demand they are reduced, if not outright eliminated, but are against any measure that would even make that possible.

Originally posted by string:

Not content with banning Marmite, because it contains, according to them, unnatural additives, they are now taxing Butter, cheeses etc because they contain natural additives.

So wait, what unnatural additives are there in Marmite? The ingredient list on my jar sounds fairly natural to me.

It has added vitamins

Ah, that. I can definitely see the Danish idea there. If you've got some not too healthy food with some vitamins added that then advertises how "healthy" it is due to "added vitamins" it's quite misleading to say the least. I suppose Marmite does that in a sense because it says "contains B vitamins" on the jar, though at least in its particular case I can't imagine that tidbit persuading anyone to buy it who otherwise wouldn't.

(However, I rather like Marmite. They can ban all those icky Kellog's cornflakes with creepy iron and vitamins and whatever added for all I care, but keep the Marmite! ;P )

And rather laughablke for the Danes considering one of their big exports here and in Europe is Danish bacon??

By the way Jaybro, sausage rolls are a big thing here and many outlets sell them. If you get it right they are yummy either in themselves or with gravy.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by aefields:

And what is the result of this sort of thing? Tax me for doing something I enjoy? It makes me hate the state. It is counterproductive.

Without the tax, however, you're making me pay for your bad habits.

BUZZZZZ! Wrong answer. The fact is, I am telling you not to pay for my bad habits.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

OK, so the make it so the state doesn't reimburse the hospitals for the care, therefore "socialism" is eliminated. Now the hospital sends out a huge bill that they'll never get paid for and has to eat cost of your care, therefore they're forced to jack up the prices on people that can pay. Now my insurance just went up because of you.Seriously evil, as you say. I don't see anyway around people that do make good choices for their lifestyle and diet having to pay for those that don't,

Oh, yes, you do too see ways around that. You stated them. Remove one of the links of that chain which you just described. There. Problem solved.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Healthcare is large item on the Federal budget

And it shouldn't be. Not in the real world. In utopia, yes, but not here.

Originally posted by aefields:

The fact is, I am telling you not to pay for my bad habits

BUZZZZ wrong answer yourself. It's up to you, me, or even the Federal Government. It's up to the insurance companies.

Originally posted by aefields:

And it shouldn't be. Not in the real world. In utopia, yes, but not here.

In fact, the government pays more than half healthcare expenses in the US, not counting Obamacare. Meanwhile, insurance companies continue to jack up premiums as well and more and more people can't afford health insurance, leading to greater government expenses. It's a vicious cycle. Clearly, all of that can't be blamed on junk food. However, a 20 cent or so tax on on a $7 fastfood meal will help cover expenses.

Well, anyway, your monetary argument is rather mercenary. It makes me sick that people use money as an argument to restrict freedom and then make the wrong conclusions about money.

Who takes more money from society: a) the smoker who dies at age 50 or b) the non-smoker who dies at age 90? Answer: the non-smoker. If money is what you value most, then for your money you should tell people to smoke and eat lots of salt and die before they draw so much pension and cost society so much for their failing bones and eyes.

If money is your main concern, then yeah, people who do stuff that doesn't kill them but maims them is bad for you. But if it shortens their lives, then it is good for you. You don't seem to have such a mercenary soul, but you argue for it. So just be honest.

So... it's up to the insurance companies, you say? So... you are going to give up your freedom to the insurance companies? So... you want me to sacrifice my life to them? And by "sacrifice" I don't mean "end".

But even that is rather dumb. There are all sorts of possibilities for insurance which would be fair. Take out an automobile policy which states that the users have to wear seatbelts for it to be in effect - or one which states that it has effect whether the people in the car wore seatbelts or not. Your choice. The possibilities are infinite. If current insurance policy sucks eggs, then fight it.

Originally posted by aefields:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

you're making me pay for your bad habits.

BUZZZZZ! Wrong answer.

You just said that it is not me making you pay for my bad habits. You said that it is up to the insurance companies. See the difference?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

, a 20 cent or so tax on on a $7 fastfood meal will help cover expenses.

No, it will not. Like a great many people, you seem to not grasp the fact that everyone dies. Everyone dies. Everyone. It is only a question of when and how. You will die. I will die. That is a fact. Get it through your thick skull.

If you can do that, then try to understand the economics. Dieing young costs less to society, dieing old costs more. Games that insurance companies or governments play do not change that fact of life. If you have a problem with the way things are, then rail against things that can be changed. Railing against what cannot be changed is not helpful.

... Unless you're just letting out some personal frustration at the way the world is. ;-)

Originally posted by aefields:

Who takes more money from society: a) the smoker who dies at age 50 or b) the non-smoker who dies at age 90? Answer: the non-smoker. If money is what you value most, then for your money you should tell people to smoke and eat lots of salt and die before they draw so much pension and cost society so much for their failing bones and eyes.

How much time did the smoker spend in the hospital? Not only the months prior to death, but also all the doctor visits in years prior? The costs are probably a lot closer then you think, especially considering the 15+ extra working years the person of 90 put in. Besides, smokers only die about 10 years earlier on average, so your example may be rather contrived. I won't claim to know the answers here, but your argument merely seems to tell how you think it should be while not saying much about how it actually is.

Originally posted by aefields:

No, it will not. Like a great many people, you seem to not grasp the fact that everyone dies. Everyone dies. Everyone. It is only a question of when and how. You will die. I will die. That is a fact. Get it through your thick skull.

Yes, how. I think the biggest question at this point is perhaps what do you think about euthanasia? I think you should support it in order to be consistent in your self-determination argument.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

How much time did the smoker spend in the hospital? Not only the months prior to death, but also all the doctor visits in years prior? The costs are probably a lot closer then you think,

Originally posted by aefields:

No, it will not. Like a great many people, you seem to not grasp the fact that everyone dies. Everyone dies. Everyone. It is only a question of when and how. You will die. I will die. That is a fact. Get it through your thick skull.

Yes, how. I think the biggest question at this point is perhaps what do you think about euthanasia? I think you should support it in order to be consistent in your self-determination argument.

The costs are a lot further apart THAN you think. My father's father had 3 heart attacks, and died of the third. Not much medical care at all. My father's mother lived almost to 100. I know the cost. It was orders of magnitude greater than what my grandfather cost. It makes me feel bad that you make so much of monetary difference. But the fact that you get it wrong - misunderstand and misuse facts - pushes it over the edge. Not only are you wrong, but you are arguing from a wrong basis. Months and years prior to death: there are a lot more of them for those who live to older ages. This is not merely theory, this is observed reality. If your argument is monetary, then your argument argues for pushing cigarettes on my grandfather.

I'll answer the question about euthanasia, too. Only if you realize it is not the biggest question, not even a big one... and only vaguely related. You confuse suicide and euthanasia. Suicide is self-determination. Euthanasia includes the possibility of helping people die who want to die (a good thing), but it also includes the possibility of coercively killing off the unproductive (a bad thing).

You just made half a dozen posts about the monetary difference and I am making an issue out if it?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

You just made half a dozen posts about the monetary difference and I am making an issue out if it?

Well, I have been bombarded with arguments about the monetary difference. Maybe it isn't that big a deal to you. Evidently it's a big issue for some, since I keep hearing it. So then, is it not an issue for you after all?

Originally posted by aefields:

To help someone and then force them to avoid doing what led to them needing help is false charity. Charity is good. Charity does not coerce. Coercing people to avoid harming themselves is not charity. It is false.

We call that a "sin tax" over here. Sin taxes are bad.

You got it backwards. <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=701882">Charity is bad</a>. Sin tax is good.


That is, assuming sin is bad and that the tax overhead is not high. Taxes distort the economy in the sense that it will make some activity more attractive to some other activity compared with the situation without taxes. Given that we need public government (how much of it is of course a political question), and said government needs money, it is better to tax activity that has a negative impact on the economy.

Originally posted by aefields:

Well, I have been bombarded with arguments about the monetary difference. Maybe it isn't that big a deal to you. Evidently it's a big issue for some, since I keep hearing it. So then, is it not an issue for you after all?

It's not an issue in the sense that making people's life better by keeping them healthy and making their lives better for a longer period of time is going to cost money. If it costs more money to have more people healthy to an older age then this is not an issue. As far as I'm concerned if people disagree with me they're free to die earlier if they want, but funding the results of e.g. too much fat and tobacco through the purchase of said items seems only fair. The money has to come from somewhere. I get the impression that your vision of only those who can pay will receive care has more in the way of what you're accusing me of.

Originally posted by aefields:

I'll answer the question about euthanasia, too. Only if you realize it is not the biggest question, not even a big one... and only vaguely related. You confuse suicide and euthanasia. Suicide is self-determination. Euthanasia includes the possibility of helping people die who want to die (a good thing), but it also includes the possibility of coercively killing off the unproductive (a bad thing).

I disagree with that. Euthanasia is assisted suicide, meaning it is suicide, but the means of suicide is provided by e.g. a doctor. In the sense of coercively killing of the unwanted* it's about the same as the word democratic in German Democratic Republic: misuse of the word. Anyway, euthanasia is a win-win. The patient can die with dignity while e.g. the cancer is not yet making life completely unbearable and the last weeks to months of hospital-time don't occur therefore don't cost any money. It's of course in this latter part that danger lies.

I called it the biggest question in regard to your opinions because I was having doubts about how consistent you were. Turns out my doubts were mistaken.

* I explicitly say unwanted rather than repeating the word unproductive because when Nazi Germany used the word they weren't too worried about actual productivity.

Originally posted by aefields:

Well, anyway, your monetary argument is rather mercenary. It makes me sick that people use money as an argument to restrict freedom and then make the wrong conclusions about money.

Who takes more money from society: a) the smoker who dies at age 50 or b) the non-smoker who dies at age 90? Answer: the non-smoker. If money is what you value most, then for your money you should tell people to smoke and eat lots of salt and die before they draw so much pension and cost society so much for their failing bones and eyes.

If money is your main concern, then yeah, people who do stuff that doesn't kill them but maims them is bad for you. But if it shortens their lives, then it is good for you. You don't seem to have such a mercenary soul, but you argue for it. So just be honest.

So... it's up to the insurance companies, you say? So... you are going to give up your freedom to the insurance companies? So... you want me to sacrifice my life to them? And by "sacrifice" I don't mean "end".

But even that is rather dumb. There are all sorts of possibilities for insurance which would be fair. Take out an automobile policy which states that the users have to wear seatbelts for it to be in effect - or one which states that it has effect whether the people in the car wore seatbelts or not. Your choice. The possibilities are infinite. If current insurance policy sucks eggs, then fight it.

So basically:

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

So basically:

[/quote]

exactly!

Originally posted by jax:

Originally posted by aefields:

To help someone and then force them to avoid doing what led to them needing help is false charity. Charity is good. Charity does not coerce. Coercing people to avoid harming themselves is not charity. It is false.

We call that a "sin tax" over here. Sin taxes are bad.

You got it backwards. Charity is bad. Sin tax is good.


That is, assuming sin is bad and that the tax overhead is not high. Taxes distort the economy in the sense that it will make some activity more attractive to some other activity compared with the situation without taxes. Given that we need public government (how much of it is of course a political question), and said government needs money, it is better to tax activity that has a negative impact on the economy.

But you can't assume that. Sin tax, such as exorbitant tax on tobacco, is not about the sin being bad. It is about the people who propose the tax disliking the "sin". It is about punishing people for doing something which does not harm others. It is also about taxing a minority so that the rest of the populace don't have to pay their fair share. That's why sin taxes are not good. A tax on tobacco which is used only to fund education about the health effects of tobacco is reasonable, and I wouldn't call it a sin tax. Tobacco tax used to fund programs that help people quit smoking is a gray area. Tobacco tax used as a general revenue source is bad. It turns government into the street pusher who starts selling you heroin for cheap and then raises the prices once you're hooked. And there is no justice at all in taxing fat. No excuse for it.

About the other thread: I gather that by "charity" you mean charitable institutions. Yes?

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

They're just using fat people as an excuse for more taxes.

Tax terrorism. It started with cigarette's taxes.
Always with the same argument, it's for your sake.

Originally posted by aefields:

But you can't assume that. Sin tax, such as exorbitant tax on tobacco, is not about the sin being bad. It is about the people who propose the tax disliking the "sin". It is about punishing people for doing something which does not harm others. It is also about taxing a minority so that the rest of the populace don't have to pay their fair share. That's why sin taxes are not good. A tax on tobacco which is used only to fund education about the health effects of tobacco is reasonable, and I wouldn't call it a sin tax. Tobacco tax used to fund programs that help people quit smoking is a gray area. Tobacco tax used as a general revenue source is bad. It turns government into the street pusher who starts selling you heroin for cheap and then raises the prices once you're hooked. And there is no justice at all in taxing fat. No excuse for it.

About the other thread: I gather that by "charity" you mean charitable institutions. Yes?

Taxes affect the economic activity. Payroll taxes for instance make it more costly and less attractive to employ people, so the higher these taxes the fewer will be employed. Income tax is relatively neutral, it makes it less attractive to get higher income, but so does diminishing returns, so when not taken to excess it won't affect the economy that much since people will try to increase their income anyway (with some extra complications). Environmental taxes make it less attractive to pollute, and pollution is a harm to the economy, but not so much to the polluter. Traditional sin taxes makes it more expensive and thus less attractive to sin. Higher tobacco prices means less tobacco smoking whether or not that money is used for anti-smoking propaganda. Taxing an economic ill is not necessarily the best way to handle it, offsetting it would be better, but it is better to tax an economic ill than to tax an economic good. If fat in food is an economic ill, let it burn...

Charitable institutions are at least professional... The primary problem with charity, as outlined in <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=701882">the thread</a>, is that it is on the premise of the benefactor, not the beneficiary. While the beneficiary may not always have a full understanding of his needs, he is still a whole lot closer to them than the benefactor. The system of charity is there to please the benefactor, if the benefactor isn't pleased there will be no charity. This in turn affect the institutions, the middle men, and you get wasteful phenomena like the charity drive. Even if 90% goes into overhead in that drive, 10% still goes to the cause, which is 10% more than without that drive. Ergo a plethora of telethons, charity dinners and the like.

This is not to say that doing good is bad, even when misdirected, but as a system charity sucks.

Now's here a thought (probably daft as usual).

Suppose the tax on tobacco was refundable if, by the age of, say, 65, Lung cancer had not been diagnosed.

That would encourage people at risk to give up would it not?

The same with booze. A refund of all health (aka sin) taxes if by (again 65) the liver was still intact. The tax would not penalise the moderate drinkers.

By the way skål (as I enjoy my evening schnapps - medicinal you understand).

Originally posted by jax:

Taxes affect the economic activity. Payroll taxes for instance make it more costly and less attractive to employ people, so the higher these taxes the fewer will be employed.

We've solved that problem in our own unique way...we've sent all our jobs to China & Thailand.

What about a sin tax on the history of the Vatican? Could raise a fortune!

Originally posted by string:

Suppose the tax on tobacco was refundable if, by the age of, say, 65, Lung cancer had not been diagnosed.

That would encourage people at risk to give up would it not?

The same with booze. A refund of all health (aka sin) taxes if by (again 65) the liver was still intact. The tax would not penalise the moderate drinkers.

So you want a refund for your youth spent in debauchery? That makes sense to me.

However 65 may be too young, the argument for sin taxes was, remember, that the state needs money and those money better be taken from where they harm the economy the least. Since practically everyone will be alive at 65 that would just be a 30-40 years loan, which is not good enough. If you set the celebration age to 105 the state should still be reasonably well-fed.

Originally posted by jax:

Taxes affect the economic activity. Payroll taxes for instance... Income tax is relatively neutral... Environmental taxes make it less attractive to pollute, and pollution is a harm to the economy, but not so much to the polluter...

I agree, up to the point where you say pollution is a harm to the economy. It isn't. Not in the short term. Pollution is something which affects people who don't agree to be affected. It affects non-human people who don't agree to be affected. It is something bad which affects those who don't participate in creating it.

Originally posted by jax:

Traditional sin taxes makes it more expensive and thus less attractive to sin.

Exactly. Sin based on what someone else wants you to do, not on how it affects them. Tax on pollution is not a sin tax. Tax on wearing clothes made of two different fibers is a sin tax.

... Well, the phrase "sin tax" is of limited utility. To be clear, taxing pollution helps everyone. Taxing cotton/nylon blends helps nobody.

Originally posted by jax:

Taxing an economic ill is not necessarily the best way to handle it, offsetting it would be better, but it is better to tax an economic ill than to tax an economic good. If fat in food is an economic ill, let it burn...

So perhaps this is the point where we both agree on what happens, but disagree on what should happen. One thing that I hold dear is that an individual's freedom is more important than economics. Given the dilemma of reducing economy or reducing freedom, I choose reducing economy. Economy can give a good approximation of happiness of the populace. It can. That doesn't mean it always does.

Originally posted by jax:

... This is not to say that doing good is bad, even when misdirected, but as a system charity sucks.

I can agree with you there. It shouldn't be that way, but I have seen lots of ways where systematic/institutionalized charity sucks eggs.